Appeal No. 2004-2124
Application No. 09/795,197
The examiner’s rejection relies upon the definition of a port as “a connection
point.” The examiner asserts that Bell teaches connection point type ports. We concur;
however, we do not find that Bell teaches a port through which a cable extends, as is
claimed. According, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In the rejection of claim 3 and the rejection of claim 4, the examiner includes the
teachings of Saotome and Liebl to teach the limitations of the dependent claims. The
examiner does not assert, nor do we find, that Saotome and Liebl teach or suggest a cable
port through which the cable extends. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
New grounds of rejection under accordance with 37 CFR § 41.50(b).
At the outset, we note that we are only treating the independent claim and we
leave it to the examiner and the appellant to determine the obviousness or non-
obviousness of the limitations found in dependent claims 2 through 6. Should appellant
submit further amendments or further facts in accordance with 37 CFR 41.50(b)(1), the
examiner should consider the submission as it applies to this new grounds of rejection.
We find that appellant’s claim 1 is obvious over Nakajima and Michaelis et al.
(Michaelis) U.S. Patent 5,241,136 (a newly cited reference which is attached to this
decision). Thus, we now reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant states on page 4 of the brief:
Nakajima relates to a radiation image recording and read-out
apparatus. As shown in FIG.1, the apparatus includes a circulation and
conveyance means for conveying stimulable phosphor sheets 30, an
image recording section 40, an image readout-section 50, an erasing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007